Caspian Convention in ...
Page 1
Some believe the convention should not be ratified by Parliament before the “baseline” is determined and finalized. What is your idea on that?
The issue of determining the method for drawing straight baselines is extremely important for Iran because the Iranian coast along the southern Caspian has a concave shape. If the median line is used as the basis, that line would shift toward the Iranian coast, reducing Iran’s share of the water, seabed and subsoil.
For this reason, Iranian negotiators included a provision requiring the “unfavorable situation” of geographically disadvantaged countries to be taken into account when drawing straight baselines, with Iran declaring its coastline to be such a case.
An important point that critics overlook is that the convention does not address the delimitation of the seabed and subsoil at all . Article 8 of the convention explicitly states that the delimitation of the seabed and subsoil must be carried out through bilateral or multilateral agreements among opposite and adjacent states.
Therefore, the convention is, in this respect, simply a “Framework Convention,” which has established principles and rules on the basis of which the work can subsequently be carried out among the countries concerned.
If ratification of the convention is delayed until the method for drawing straight baselines becomes clear, Iran would have greater leverage and a useful bargaining tool. However, more than 90 percent of the convention consists of general provisions covering areas such as navigation, fisheries, safety, environmental protection, aquatic life, combating terrorism, organized crime, innocent passage and so on.
Government and Foreign Ministry officials favor sending it on to Parliament because they believe the convention’s other 90 percent of cooperation should not be held up by lengthy baseline negotiations.
If this convention is set aside, could returning to the 1921 and 1940 treaties serve our interests?
This convention is the product of nearly three decades of intensive negotiations, expert assessments and consideration of all possible alternatives, whereas those two treaties did not address the legal issues surrounding the Caspian Sea, the delimitation of its seabed and subsoil, the water area, pipelines, cables, environmental issues and so on.
The 1921 treaty was essentially a treaty of friendship concluded after the Bolshevik Revolution in the Soviet Union to abolish the colonial privileges of tsarist Russia. It simply declared the eighth chapter of the Treaty of Turkmenchay null and void, restored Iran’s right to maintain a naval force in the Caspian Sea, and recognized equal navigation rights for the two parties.
The 1940 treaty is mainly a commercial and customs agreement, with over 95 percent of its provisions covering land trade, ports and commercial navigation. Its only non-commercial provision established a 10-nautical-mile exclusive fishing zone.
Therefore, the 1921 and 1940 treaties in no way meet the needs or address the challenges facing the Caspian Sea today, such as the exploration and extraction of oil and gas from the seabed and subsoil, the construction of pipelines, fiber-optic cables, environmental protection and many other issues. Drafting a comprehensive, new and up-to-date document was therefore an unavoidable necessity for safeguarding national interests.